NSW Education Minister has warned students missing school in strikes campaigning for more action against climate change would be breaking the law.

NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes said the law is clear that school students must attend on school days.

"The law is clear and always had been, kids are required to be at school on school days," he told 2GB.

"Turn up to school. Don’t rob yourself of the opportunities to get a great quality education.”

In the lead up to student climate strikes, Prime Minister Scott Morrison called for "more learning in schools" and "less activism."

On Thursday, the Prime Minister again said students should stay in school.

"I always think kids should stay in school," he told ABC Radio.

"I'd encourage them to see ... I've set out in some detail how we meet our 2030 emissions reduction target of 26 per cent."

While, opposition leader Bill Shorten said students should protest outside of school hours, rather than during them.

"Kids are allowed to have an opinion," he said.

"In an ideal world, they would protest after school hours and on weekends."

But NSW Opposition leader Michael Daley is supporting the thousands of Australian students striking from school.

He backed the students planning to walk out of classes this week and rally for action on climate change describing them as "future leaders".

"They are inheriting from us a world that is, at best, precarious," the opposition leader told the National Press Club in Sydney.

"They don't have a microphone and they don't have money like the big end of town. But they do have a right to protest."
In response, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said suggestions students should miss school to strike were "concerning."

"Children are there to go to school and I absolutely support their rights to have views about the world and I absolutely support them expressing themselves but not during school," she said.

"It really concerns me that the alternate premier to the state would think missing school is acceptable."

"The best opportunities anyone can have is to be at school and learn."

Labor leader Michael Daley on Wednesday said global warming was the most pressing environmental threat of our time and young people should insist on having a voice where they currently have none.

"I support these young people and their action," Mr Daley said.

"It's a demonstration of young leadership. Events such as Friday are formative for our future leaders."

Senior government minister Christopher Pyne said students were “damaging their education” by attending the protest.

Click to expand...

Interesting response from the Portuguese Environment Minister (all I could find):

The Portuguese minister for the Environment João Pedro Matos Fernandes has already supported the students’ initiative.
“The protest is completely in line with our government’s practice”, he said, having met student councils in the days leading up to the protest.
“We are fully committed in combating the climate change crisis and Portugal has been a role model for other countries”, including measures such as “prohibiting plastic in state departments and supporting renewable energy development”, the minister recalled.

There have been mixed reactions here, some politicans agree with the studends and see it as a sign of democracy where as others think they belong in to schools.

What's interesting for Germany is that the students actually don't brake any laws or regulations since you do have the right to be absent from school, as long as you have a reason for it that's important enough. Now the question is just, if a political march is enough. A lot of teachers support their cause though. I personaly think, they have all have the right do it. A lot of people complain how the youth is not interested in politics and how they never do anything, but when they decide to do something some say, they are to young and inexperienced. They are not only protesting due to the climate crysis but also against polution in general and the fact that the future is at the very least in jeopard. Many people in their 50s and 60s probably won't have to face the consquences of our current life style, but teenagers and and children today, might have some 70 or 80 years infront of them and they will definetly suffer from the effects of pollution and environmental damages.

I really hope this movement will gain more momentum and that we will see even more protests and marches. Seriously, a lot of things need some urgent changes and to many politicans have simply done nothing but talking about it. It's about time, that we think aout some serious solutions here.

Really wish we had those in my country. The amount of people here who have the idea that a good future is one with tons of money is just absurd.
Then again, I doubt it will do anything since literature and talking doesn't seem to work in changing public opinion about science and the future here.

Can't wait for the result, this will be hilarious. Last time German environmentalists went apeshit resulted in ditched out nuclear power plants and increased number of thermal power stations burning fucktons of Russian gas, with pollution skyrocketing exponentially.

Really wish we had those in my country. The amount of people here who have the idea that a good future is one with tons of money is just absurd.
Then again, I doubt it will do anything since literature and talking doesn't seem to work in changing public opinion about science and the future here.

Click to expand...

We have to wait and see I guess. I am just glad to see young people out there. We often fall easily in a depressed mood and where we think "Why bother? Nothings gona change!". I think apathy is one of the worst things that can happen.

The prophet foretold that we have eleven or twelve years left. Well, not the first prophecy about the end of the world I've heard.
So, anyone wanna take bets wether the Fridays4Future thing will disappear quite quickly after the EU parliament elections mid May?

My hope is that it becomes a movement, maybe like in the 1960s. Honestly, they have a point, why learn for a future that's so fucked up that you probably won't be using the stuff you're learning for anyway? This idea of economic growth, is killing us and destroying the environment at an increasing rate. In just a few decades, 2/3 of the animals on this planet could be extinct. In 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in our Oceans. If you're in your 30s now, this stuff will hit you as well.

Sure, it's a good idea. But I don't think it's organic. Or even real. But we'll see, and we can still hope that it will lead to actual solutions, not just idiocy.

/edit: Speaking of actual solutions and not just idiocy: The prophet again has spoken positively about nuclear power. As positively as an uneducated zealot can be about things they bellyfeel to be the Devil's work, but more positively than most Greens ever would. She'll be buried after the EU elections.

Especially when you're the figurehead of a movement that will lynch anyone going for nuclear power. She might not realize it, but that path leads to heresy and excommunication. Pretty sure that she'll slowly fade away after the EU elections.
/edit: Oh, I see that Annalena Baerbock already countered the Prophet. And at least one newspaper covered what they jokingly call the "Greta Question". Gotta love the guy talking for "Scientists4Future" there against nuclear power. "In the next 20 years we will realize an affordable and safe power production exclusively on the basis of renewables. With natural gas power plants as a safety net. But hey, we won't increase consumption of natural gas at least!"
What an absolute idiot. But hey, professor for renewable energies in Berlin, what do you expect.

Actually it, doesn't matter when you think about it. This kind of economic model we have right now, is not sustainable, regardless if we used nuclear power, renewable energy or just fossil fuel. The change in our climate is forcing us to re-think our way of life and not just if we switch from fossil fuel/nuclear energy to renwables. Even if we managed to jump tomorrow to 100% renwable energy, we still would run in to the issue that our energy and ressource consumption is growing exponentially, which destroys more and more of the environment. Infact, the more serious issue compared to the growing global temperature is the imminent collaps of the global ecosystem, as we're currently wittnessing the next mass extinction on a global scale, mainly due to pollution and habitat loss.

The clock is ticking and we really have to make some changes now or it will be to late.

It is only nuclear energy, not solar and wind, that has radically and rapidly decarbonized energy supplies while increasing wages and growing societal wealth.

And it is only nuclear that has, by powering high-speed trains everywhere from France to Japan to China, decarbonized transportation, which is the source of about one-third of the emissions humankind creates.

Look, I agree that nuclear energy can help, but this? I am not sure how anyone could write that while we had issues like Tschernobyle and Fukushima happening in the recent past not to mention the old and outdated reactors here in Europa. Asse II also highlights very nicely, what this 'clean' technology really means in the end. It's way more expensive, then people think. I could also say that nuclear technology comes with its own serious issues and it is not a magical switch that we turn on, and bam! We can keep our lovely capitalism and consumerism while saving the world.

I believe that we will either keep this capitalist way and crash our earth or we will find alternatives, but I fear we won't manage to keep both, capitalism and a good environment.

As I said, it doesn't mater what source we actually use in the end, we have to find ways to cut the consumption and growth here.

He can write that because statistics are still on his side. Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest power source. Main reason it isn't utilized to its maximum efficiency is politics. Reason we have a storage problem to begin with is politics. Basically all issues with nuclear power are engineering problems that are either solved and shelved or underfunded because a solution isn't wanted. Saving the environment is nice and good, but he has a point: Saving the environment is a means to end capitalism to some, and nuclear power makes that harder to sell.

These kids protesting for their future have decided that uploading a black image at Instagram is the best way how to emphasize their good fight. Single Google search for very short string draws 0.3 Wh at Google datacenters, uploading any content is much more demanding, so hundreds of thousands images uploaded worldwide in the same day without any technical or practical reason seems to be extremely counterproductive. Also uploading a black picture is racist!!1!

Saving the environment is a means to end capitalism to some, and nuclear power makes that harder to sell.

I don't think so, nuclear power is not a magical device that makes all the underlying issues we currently face dissapear, not to mention that there is a large industry and lobby behind it with the habit to throw the nuclear waste at the tax payer while keeping all the profit. As I said, I am not against nuclear energy at all cost, it can be a viable solution to some issues and we should invest in research there are good and safe reactor designs out there, but we have also to be realistic here. No energy source, can keep up with our growing energy needs. On top of that, imagine what would happen if we no clue increased the number of nuclear plants by hundredfold. Do you trust nations like Serbia or Moroco with the use of nuclear plants? They do seem nice, up to the point when you give them to someone who's cutting costs at every corner and suddenly no one wants to live near a 40+ year old reactor, like Tihange, Belgium anymore. You can't just throw them around everywhere and call it a day. To make it short, the article sounds a bit to much like dick sucking to me.

Nuclear technology should be used when necessary and avoided when possible. I am realistic here, renewable energy is not everywhere a viable source for energy, so nuclear plants can be a good solution. That's my opinion at least. But as said, it would still not solve the source of our current issue. That we spend to much energy to produce shit no one needs. let us be honest here, how much energy is wasted on production lines for goods and services that serve no other purpose but to fuel a needless consumerism? Even if we switched comletely to nuclear energy and renewable energy without any Co2, we would still pollute our oceans with plastic and killing the environment. This is the big elephant in the room. Infact, I believe we could even somehow survive the climage change, but what I fear we can not survive, is the collapse of the global eco system. 2/3 of ALL(!) animals, could go extinct in the near future, we are at the brink of the next mass etinction event.

We are not just facing one problem like climate change here, but actually many. The pollution from plastic, habitat loss for animals, overexploitation [of natural resources] and climate change, are all serious issues on their own.